Centro E Periferianas Cadeias Globais De Valor: Uma Interpretação a Partir Dos Pioneiros Do Desenvolvimento

Abstract

RESUMO O artigo objetiva reconciliar teoricamente a realidade atual das cadeias globais de valor no início do século XXI às lições dos pioneiros do Desenvolvimento sobre as possibilidades de desenvolvimento econômico via comércio internacional. Para tanto, realiza-se uma discussão teórica destacando algumas das principais ideias daqueles autores, visando,em seguida, revisitar o conceito de centro-periferia no contexto da divisão do trabalho atual a partir da análise dos dados do FMI, Banco Mundial,e TIVA/OECD. Conclui-se que a divisão centro/periferia permanece, porém remodelada: ainda há uma expressiva diferença de renda entre os países ricos e os demais, que coincide com as discrepâncias na complexidade das exportações, nas estruturas do emprego e, finalmente, mas não menos importante, na produtividade agrícola.

The South’s Thoughts on Development: Links Between Latin America and Africa

“…The generalization of industrial production globally transformed the established dichotomy manufacturing center/periphery natural resources producer, according to Prebisch and Dia -since the periphery also produces and exports manufactured products, and the center also produces and exports natural resources -as shows data on international trade (WTO). Actually, the center seems to be producing technology and knowledge-intensive complex goods (see Atlas of Complexity), or, particularly, the high value-added activities of GVC -as argue Cardoso & Reis (2018). In this sense, the center/ periphery division presented by Prebisch and Dia remains, however, remodeled.…”

“…However, in order to achieve improvements in the living standards of the population as a whole, redistributive policies and reform for profound social transformation would be necessary. Otherwise, the benefits of structural change would be appropriated only by the elites, perpetuating and even accentuating existing inequalities and disparities (Cardoso & Reis, 2018).…”

“…In this sense, the center/ periphery division presented by Prebisch and Dia remains, however, remodeled. There is still a significant difference in income between rich countries and others, which coincides with differences in the pattern of export and is also marked by structural heterogeneity, with the differentials of productivity in tradable and non-tradable sectors, especially of agricultural products (Cardoso & Reis, 2018).…”

Drawing value curves: lessons from financial statements of the world’s biggest manufacturing corporations

“…TNC have penetrated in the periphery seeking for cheap supply of inputs, domestic markets and export platforms. For structuralists, TNC' local production, as well as primary exports production, were traditionally characterized by a structural heterogeneity of wages and productivity between tradable and non-tradable sectors, binding the domestic growth dynamics (Pinto, 1969;Cardoso & Reis, 2016). Moreover, along the globalization process of XX and XXI centuries, TNC have developed international 7 The dependency theories had different streams of thoughts, summarized by Blomstrom & Heltne (1984) in four: a) the auto-criticism of the developmentalism-including Furtado and Sunkel, already presented; b) the "neo-marxist" interpretation of Ruy Mauro Marini, Vania Bambirra, Theotonio dos Santos, in special; c) the associated dependency version of Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Enzo Faletto; d) and the view of Andre Gunder Frank.…”

“…value chains which high-value activities remain in the centre, while low value-added ones are performed in the South (ILO, 2002;Globerman, 2011;Cardoso & Reis, 2016), though China may be consolidating as the biggest exception. 8 For the structuralist approach, this configuration enlarges the development gap between centre and periphery because the more knowledge and technology-intensive is the local addition of value to the production, the greater is the stimuli to supply and demand dynamics (Mc Millan & Rodrik, 2011) if there are institutions (in special, State policies) that diminishes structural heterogeneity and lead to power and income redistribution (Medeiros & Trebat, 2017).…”